April 15, 2013 • 2 notes
Q
I understand the term Lithromantic and what it means - I'm pretty certain it is accurate in terms of my own romantic nature - however I am curious, and I thought you may know why the prefix lith- which means stone would describe this particular idea. I don't see how a lack of desire for reciprocation could give anyone the life of a stone and personally don't think this is an Idea we should be spreading. I hope you may have some insight into this matter.
Anonymous
A

I definitely can answer you, and wow, thank you for bringing me this question!!

I, and a friend, the co-mod of this blog, are the original coiners of the term lithromantic. A few years ago we were trying to describe this thing, and there was no community, no one else to turn to. So we thought coining a term for it might help encourage people to gather (as this had proven to be the case in other GSM areas).

We looked at other terms for romantic and sexual orientations, and we noticed that most of them relied of latin or greek roots. So we went looking for a root which meant something at all like “experiences without desire to reciprocate”.

We didn’t find anything. I mean, anything close, not anything we could figure out how to twist around and make it mean what we wanted.

But, we’re both AFAB queers, one of us Stone, so we were familiar with Stone Butch sexuality.

For those of you who don’t know, Butch/Femme is sortof the Old Guard of lesbian sexuality (not to say butch/femme isn’t still a thing, but a particular type of butche/femme was historically the norm for lesbians), and Stone is a particular type of sexual expression. Someone who is Stone likes to provide sexual stimulation to a partner, but does not like to receive sexual stimulation themself.

This was the closest allegory that we could find, and we chose to call this in our naming of this romantic orientation.

April 5, 2013
Q
You realize that turning anon asks off would cut down on the amount of harassment you receive, right? Most harassers are cowards, down at their core. (Me, I'm just not interested in attracting your haters into my space, if you decide to respond publicly.)
Anonymous
A

I’m well aware of this, but it would also cut down on the number of asks we get from people who are genuinely curious or are trying to find themselves and find a safe place, but who are afraid of being outed and receiving harassment themselves. I want to keep this space open those questions at any cost.

(I understand your reasons for remaining anonymous. I’m glad you chose to stay anon so that I can publish this post and make my reasoning on this known to my followers.)

April 5, 2013 • 2 notes
Q
I don't understand how being "lithoromantic" is different than being attracted to people who play hard to get. That's a pretty normal thing--lots of people want what they can't have. Is lithoromantic just another word for this phenomenon, or is there more to it than that?
Anonymous
A

No, it’s not the same.

Firstly, lithromantic doesn’t necessarily say anything about how romantic attraction starts in a person. It’s primarily about how that person feels about the romantic attraction once it’s there. Lithromantics may be attracted to any variety of qualities.

What being lithromantic means is that once that romantic attraction forms, they don’t feel a need to have it returned, unlike most romantics, for whom the desire for reciprocation is an inherent part of romantic attraction.

Secondly, the whole ‘wanting what you can’t have’ thing is all about the challenge of getting it even though you aren’t supposed to. Lithromantics aren’t about trying to get something that we can’t have. While some lithros may be attracted to people who won’t love them back, this isn’t true for all, and in any case, it isn’t about trying to have that person.

Honestly, the whole concept of “playing hard to get” ties into a lot of sexism and rape culture. And given the stereotype that lithromantic = stalker sexual, it’s really harmful to link lithromanticism to that kind of ideation.

March 30, 2013
Q
Lithsexuality sounds a lot like gray-asexuality to me -- at least, some gray-asexuals identify that way because they experience sexual attraction but no desire to act on it. If you want to make lithsexuality specifically more of a thing, try introducing the idea to the ace community!
bessibels
A

I’m not trying to make lithsexuality more of a thing. I was just saying that I know there are people who identify that way.

But to anyone who is invested in the lithsexual identity, yeah, maybe try talking to the ace community.

(Although, as a grey-ace myself, I’d advise anyone interested in exploring the ace community to not just dive in. Some spaces are definitely not safe for everyone. I’m having trouble finding receipts right now, but here’s one link: x.)

March 28, 2013
Q
Could there be such a thing as lithsexuality? Because that's what I kinda feel. I have sexual feelings but I don't want them reciprocation and I don't want it in general.
greyed-asexy
A

Yeah, lithsexual is a thing. I’ve definitely heard of people identifying that way, but google won’t find you much of anything on the subject, and I just checked and the lithsexual tag on tumblr only has three posts in it and two are from haters. So. I don’t know where you’d go for more information.

Can anyone help out with that?

March 12, 2013 • 34 notes

i genuinely don’t understand this idea that lithromantic = stalker sexual

i mean first of all, can we stop conflating romantic orientation with sexuality?

secondly, tho. i’ve had stalkers, and i’ve been in abusive relationships. and i can tell you that none of those people were ok with me not returning their love. point of fact, they were pretty adamant that my feelings for them had better be pretty identical to their feelings for me. and that if i couldn’t reciprocate those feelings, that was my fault for being a bad person, but they were still sure they could change me.

i’ve also been in a relationship with a lithromantic. in fact, i still am. because, completely unlike my stalkers and abusers, they communicated with me openly and accepted and respected my feelings and didn’t try to forcibly alter me.

and i’ve been in a relationship in which i loved the other person lithromantically, and just like my other lith relationship, we communicated openly and accepted each other. sadly, that one didn’t last, but that was, to my knowledge at least, nothing to do with the lithromanticness of my affections and everything to do with the fact that virginia doesn’t really believe in tenant’s rights.

seriously, lithromantic does not mean ‘is sexually aroused by individuals who want you to leave them alone’, it means ‘capable of experiencing romantic attraction but not desirous of reciprocation on those feelings’.

those are two different things.

February 26, 2013 • 7 notes
She wants to know if I love her, that’s all anyone wants from anyone else, not love itself but the knowledge that love is there, like new batteries in the flashlight in the emergency kit in the hall closet.

- Jonathan Safran Foer

I think Lithromantics want to be those batteries, they want to give that person love but they just dont need to have their own set of batteries- to have that love returned to them back. 

submitted by anonymous

January 18, 2013 • 2 notes
Q
Found this quote today-thing it fits lithromantics perfectly: "Love is always bestowed as a gift- free, willingly and without expectation. We don't love to be loved; we love to love" - Leo Buscaglia
Anonymous
A

what a good quote. thank you!

January 6, 2013
Q
Hey, I think this term might apply to me. But I was wondering if it would still apply to people who experience repulsion towards people who are attracted (romantically,sexually, etc.) to them because of events they experienced in the past? Like, more of a psychological thing rather than something they were born with. Thanks!
Anonymous
A

It certainly can. There is significant variety among lithros. Some of us are okay with reciprocation, but some of us have a specific aversion to it. It may be something we’ve just always had, or it may be something we picked up along the way. Just because it’s ‘nurture’ more than ‘nature’ doesn’t make it any less real.

(This is something close to my heart. If you want to talk about it further, message us again. I’m totally open to chat about it.)

January 6, 2013 • 56 notes • ourcatastrophe

there's our catastrophe: k so I know everyone and their dog has had a whinge about the...

ourcatastrophe:

k so I know everyone and their dog has had a whinge about the ridiculous sexuality labels of tumblr but squaresome found a particularly depressing one the other night, “lithosexual”, which apparently means “experiences sexual attraction but is not interested in acting on it”.

it’s just — if…

um, no.

first off, for the record, some asexuals are queer.

second, romantic orientantion and sexual orientation are not the same.

third, the term lithromantic was originally coined by two individuals, both of whom are queer and CAFAB. one IDs as a lesbian and one IDs as stone. the use of lith/stone was in no way appropriative, but was a tribute/call back to previously established linguistics of romantico-sexual minorities.

in conclusion, let us alone.